Discussion
Front engine, light weight (under 3,000 pounds), powerful engine (wasn't the XKE the first production car to 150 mph), priced at the Boxster/Cayman, with evolutionary looks to an XKE, much more sporting than the XKR, every day driver.
What was the price relationship to a new Aston DB 4,5,6 to a XKE in the 1960's?
What was the price relationship to a new Aston DB 4,5,6 to a XKE in the 1960's?
you should try it, you'll be surprised.jpf said:
Front engine, light weight (under 3,000 pounds), powerful engine (wasn't the XKE the first production car to 150 mph), priced at the Boxster/Cayman, with evolutionary looks to an XKE, much more sporting than the XKR, every day driver.
What was the price relationship to a new Aston DB 4,5,6 to a XKE in the 1960's?
The E was around £2000, the Aston was over £4000.What was the price relationship to a new Aston DB 4,5,6 to a XKE in the 1960's?
Jaguar did produce a follow up to the E-Type (XKE) it was the XJS. The thing is that it was a replacement for the series III E-Type. During the life of the E, it evolved. The series I of 1961 was a very different car to the series III of 1975. Presumably during it's life, customer pressure pushed it from being a sports car to being a GT.
As to the difference in pricing between the Jaguars and it's competitors, the DB4/5/6 would be the for runners of the Vanquish, what's the pricing difference between an XKR and a Vanquish S?
Before the E-Type, there were even bigger price differentials. Try going back to the 50s, look at the prices of BMW 508, MB 300SL and the XK 120/140/150 Jags. Neither of the Germans could keep up with the XKs yet the BMW was probably over 5 times the price. Even compared with the XKSS, a car that Road & Track tested 0-60 in 1957 at about 5.7s was significantly cheaper than the SL. But I don't think it would be possible to make a car with those price differences these days.
As to the difference in pricing between the Jaguars and it's competitors, the DB4/5/6 would be the for runners of the Vanquish, what's the pricing difference between an XKR and a Vanquish S?
Before the E-Type, there were even bigger price differentials. Try going back to the 50s, look at the prices of BMW 508, MB 300SL and the XK 120/140/150 Jags. Neither of the Germans could keep up with the XKs yet the BMW was probably over 5 times the price. Even compared with the XKSS, a car that Road & Track tested 0-60 in 1957 at about 5.7s was significantly cheaper than the SL. But I don't think it would be possible to make a car with those price differences these days.
One of the things that's hard to get your head around with the e-type is it's relative size, by modren standards it's small and light, for soem reason everyone thinks of it as a big car, for example compared to the s2000, it's 30cm longer, 10cm narrower has a similar wheel base and is 150cm lower. You do sit further back and the extra length is almost entirely behind the rear wheel. An S1 weights 170kg less then the s2000.
I guess a modern S1 would be similar if very slightly larger then then the s2000, ideally come with the 4.2v8 and cost around £40-50k, TVR have proved there is a market for this kind of car, especially if they keep they can avoid all the gt equipment, i've always thought the tvr tuscan was a modern version of the S1.
It would probably make the most sense though for them to use the xk chasis and shortern it by removing the rear seat, lighten it by removing the gt equipment and call it the xks, or xkss, or even ressurect e-type or f-type as the short wheel base sports car version of the xk. They shouldn't be scared of making this kind of sprts cars, tvr showed there was a market for them and the boxster saved porsche.
I actually think it's a trick jaguar have missed that bmw and mercedes seem very good at, you take the standard car, cut the roof off for the convertible version, lower it and shorten it for the coupe version, raise it and make it an estate for the mpv/estate version, raise it more for the suv version, i think they could pull this kind of treatment off with both the xf and xj
Anyway i'm off tomorrow to get my e-typw back after 5 months following the tree incident
pk
I guess a modern S1 would be similar if very slightly larger then then the s2000, ideally come with the 4.2v8 and cost around £40-50k, TVR have proved there is a market for this kind of car, especially if they keep they can avoid all the gt equipment, i've always thought the tvr tuscan was a modern version of the S1.
It would probably make the most sense though for them to use the xk chasis and shortern it by removing the rear seat, lighten it by removing the gt equipment and call it the xks, or xkss, or even ressurect e-type or f-type as the short wheel base sports car version of the xk. They shouldn't be scared of making this kind of sprts cars, tvr showed there was a market for them and the boxster saved porsche.
I actually think it's a trick jaguar have missed that bmw and mercedes seem very good at, you take the standard car, cut the roof off for the convertible version, lower it and shorten it for the coupe version, raise it and make it an estate for the mpv/estate version, raise it more for the suv version, i think they could pull this kind of treatment off with both the xf and xj
Anyway i'm off tomorrow to get my e-typw back after 5 months following the tree incident
pk
When one reads the list of the most beautiful cars of all time, the E-type is always near the top.
You don't need an MBA to figure out that an evolution of the E-type would be a profitable venture. The XKR appeals to the older demographic, where the E-type would attract younger buyers.
You don't need an MBA to figure out that an evolution of the E-type would be a profitable venture. The XKR appeals to the older demographic, where the E-type would attract younger buyers.
jpf said:
When one reads the list of the most beautiful cars of all time, the E-type is always near the top.
You don't need an MBA to figure out that an evolution of the E-type would be a profitable venture. The XKR appeals to the older demographic, where the E-type would attract younger buyers.
I think that is just a finical issue. Most Ferraris are also bought by older people. Porsche 911s are too.You don't need an MBA to figure out that an evolution of the E-type would be a profitable venture. The XKR appeals to the older demographic, where the E-type would attract younger buyers.
It's a mistake to say that because the E-Type was beautiful any car that Jaguar claim is it's successor will sell well. To sell well, the new "E" would need to be right, it would need to look right, it would need to go right, it would need to be priced right, it would need to be built right, marketed right, sold right and supported right. From Jaguars or Fords point of view it would also need to make a profit. How many of these do you think Jaguar/Ford can afford to do.
One major problem that that they seem to suffer from is that to make cars cost effectively they need to share a platform with some other model in the Ford empire. The moment they do this all the press, at least in the UK, start every sentence with some comment about Mondeos... etc. Other, non "British" manufactures are seemingly allowed to do this. Audis, VWs in drag, VWs, they're just Skodas, Bentley's, they're just Audis, you get this this in every review. But the moment Jaguar tried it.... it's a Ford in drag.
The XK platform isn't shared with other Fords, but it's probably far too expensive to build a cut price car out of. Isn't it already a cut down XJ floor anyway.
The 90s S-Type was panned for being a Ford LS..??.. Ford hated the platform coz it was too expensive. Jaguar hated the platform coz it was too compromised. Only once the Ford project bogged off the car, could Jaguar sort the chassis properly.
Jaguar don't have MB or BMWs volumes, they probably can't afford to produce a complete new platform on their own for a new niche product. Ford doesn't have the money to invest any longer. US health care costs for ex workers have seen to that.
Just my thoughts.
a8hex said:
Jaguar did produce a follow up to the E-Type (XKE) it was the XJS. The thing is that it was a replacement for the series III E-Type. During the life of the E, it evolved. The series I of 1961 was a very different car to the series III of 1975. Presumably during it's life, customer pressure pushed it from being a sports car to being a GT.
As to the difference in pricing between the Jaguars and it's competitors, the DB4/5/6 would be the for runners of the Vanquish, what's the pricing difference between an XKR and a Vanquish S?
Before the E-Type, there were even bigger price differentials. Try going back to the 50s, look at the prices of BMW 508, MB 300SL and the XK 120/140/150 Jags. Neither of the Germans could keep up with the XKs yet the BMW was probably over 5 times the price. Even compared with the XKSS, a car that Road & Track tested 0-60 in 1957 at about 5.7s was significantly cheaper than the SL. But I don't think it would be possible to make a car with those price differences these days.
Not quite true really. Cars evolve and get fatter. Compare the original Xk120 to the XK150 - same thing. Jaguar designed the V12 motor for the XJ (same as the original XK120 was only supposed to be a mule to try out the XK motor for the new Mk VII) and tried it first in the old Mk X - read Dennis Jenkinson's account of going to the factory and being allowed to drive it but not to look under the bonnet. The series 3 E type roadster came about purely for economic reasons in that it used the same 9 ins longer floor pan of the 2+2 and in the original sales blurb the 4.2 was to continue but didn't. History repeating itself since when the E type came out the Jaguar publicity said it was to be complementary to the XK range but of course no more were made. Using the V12 engine from 1971 was a way of prolonging the life of a 10 year old car. Three 4.2 series 3 coupés were built with EX (experimental) chassis plates, all LHD and strangled with twin Strombergs instead of triple SU carbs.. The XJS was a result of the bane of the motor car, Ralph Nader. It seemed as if convertibles would no longer exist which is why the XJS was at first a coupé. Remember how ugly the TR7 looked too? It too was designed originally to be a convertible and only became so in later life. Both look very different in drop top guise.As to the difference in pricing between the Jaguars and it's competitors, the DB4/5/6 would be the for runners of the Vanquish, what's the pricing difference between an XKR and a Vanquish S?
Before the E-Type, there were even bigger price differentials. Try going back to the 50s, look at the prices of BMW 508, MB 300SL and the XK 120/140/150 Jags. Neither of the Germans could keep up with the XKs yet the BMW was probably over 5 times the price. Even compared with the XKSS, a car that Road & Track tested 0-60 in 1957 at about 5.7s was significantly cheaper than the SL. But I don't think it would be possible to make a car with those price differences these days.
Aston Martin and Jaguar were different companies back until comparatively recently and now an Aston is an up market Jaguar which in many ways isn't as good at a 50% higher price with about the same mechanicals. The V12 is after all only basically two 3 litre V6 Mondeo engines welded together, not a development of the original V12 which could no longer pass emission tests and wasn't economical enough anyway. The DB7 was known as "the Jag in Drag" since it used an XJS floor pan (look at the crossways weld under the rear) and the old antiquated AJ6 3.6 litre engine supercharged. In retrospect it wasn't even a very good car. Modern Astons are, like Jaguars, Fords underneath and the XJ floorpan is used for an american Lincoln saloon too. The XKSS (of which just 16 were made) was a short nose D type converted to road going specifications for the american SCCA racing since while the D type was homologated as a road going car here it wasn't allowed to be so in the USA and couldn't race in the touring class group, hence the developement of the XKSS. It was Duncan Hamilton who first made a D type into a "tourer" and then Jaguar took up the idea.
Edited by lowdrag on Wednesday 10th October 21:57
Edited by lowdrag on Wednesday 10th October 22:03
a8hex said:
piquet said:
Anyway i'm off tomorrow to get my e-typw back after 5 months following the tree incident
pk
Bet you can't wait.pk
My XK is off the road at the moment and is being seriously missed.
http://www.bespokeluggage.com/3722(1).htm
pk
tvron said:
Proper sports car ?? Buy TVR Tuscan 2 Convertible
i've come so close so many times but ended up buying the e type because despite looking at paying 50k my local dealers weren't really interested, sorry i can't choose which car i want based on a 5 minute ride up the road. That and nobody could explain why the speed 6 engine kept letting go and hence how to stop it doing it, and beautiful as they are and as much as i can put up with some unrealiability, i can't commit to a car that you're just wating for the engine to go at some point. Now if they're put or someone else put engine out the xkr with a manual box......pk
piquet said:
a8hex said:
piquet said:
Anyway i'm off tomorrow to get my e-typw back after 5 months following the tree incident
pk
Bet you can't wait.pk
My XK is off the road at the moment and is being seriously missed.
http://www.bespokeluggage.com/3722(1).htm
pk
She looks stunning! So this afternoon's weather was for your benefit.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff